lame3995o

2016-06-01 22:41:07

lame3995o is based on the fact that the lame3995n -Q1.7 quality is excellent to my ears and for all the music I tried except for the harp40_1 sample.So it was a promising strategy for me to use the -Q1.7 quality parameters as a basis and optimize them for harp40_1 at -Q1.I did that, created a new version lame3995o, and arrived at the following ABC/HR results:

lame3995n -Q1: 4.3

lame3995o -Q1: 4.5

lame3995o -Q0.5: 4.7

Compared to lame3995n lame3995o's different bahavior concerns the -Q values above 1.7. The main effect is between -Q1 and -Q0.5, The differences stop at -Q0.

Re: lame3995o

Hi halb27. I've been using -Q1 on my standard playlist for the past month, and have not noticed any quality issues under normal listening conditions. As I get more time later in the summer, I will try a few ABC/HR tests on a few select tracks from my collection. As a bonus, -Q1 uses less bitrate than standard LAME -V 1 does for my playlist. Thanks again for your continuing attention and refinement to your fork of LAME. Best Regards, LedHed8

Re: lame3995o

[...] in the line "Sing us a song you're the piano man" the 'S' in sing distorts.

A little reminder:Publishing your ABX tests's results (and if anyone would be interested, uploading a small sample of that passage) would be, as you'll probably recall, more in agreement with some of this community's TOS's - more specifically, TOS 8.

Re: lame3995o

I guess for 99.99 percent of the music everything will be perfect no matter your choice.I haven't tried recently but I guess the critical spot at sec. ~3 of problem sample eig is in favor of lame3995o - Qx (it doesn't take - Q0). Maybe there's a difference also for problem samples lead_voice or harp40_1. You can find out yourself. After all it's your ears that count.

@soundping. Is the distortion you are hearing on the 1st chorus at about the 1:26.7 mark? If so, I'm not able to hear a difference. I have the same version from the 3.0 edition. I've tried to abx on lower quality settings of 3995o, 3.99.5, and 3.98.4 versions down to V5 with no success. In the past, I've been pretty sensitive to sibilant S distortions, so perhaps my hearing has worsened. Then again, I hear an identical slight distortion in the 'S' in the FLAC and MP3 encodes.

@soundping:I also welcome if you could send a sound snippet of the critical spot so that I can have a look what's going wrong.

After all these days, will you kindly finally pass the baton of burden of proof, @soundping , please?

EDIT: To the admins/mods: I've just realized that neither halb27 nor me couldn't actually refer to soundping (member=96900) in our posts, since whenever we both typed "@soundping" in our replies, the editor has interpreted it as 'sound' (member=57038) - who is a totally different member - even when I at least, confirmed it by clicking on the right name in the drop-down list that pops out.

PS: Though it may be us doing something wrong, as @LedHed8 managed to do it properly.

Re: lame3995o

EDIT: To the admins/mods: I've just realized that neither halb27 nor me couldn't actually refer to soundping (member=96900) in our posts, since whenever we both typed "@soundping" in our replies, the editor has interpreted it as 'sound' (member=57038) - who is a totally different member - even when I at least, confirmed it by clicking on the right name in the drop-down list that pops out.

PS: Though it may be us doing something wrong, as @LedHed8 managed to do it properly.

You may mention members manually using the member=id# BBCode tag. For an example, quote the posts. It's a pain, but it works. I'll report this to ElkArte forum as a bug, or misfeature.

Re: lame3995o

-Vx internally uses a number of parameters controlling the accuracy of lossy encoding.Lame has no real idea what a setting of these parameters has to be chosen in a specific situation for the music to be transparent. That's why these parameters are static.Sure these static parameters are carefully chosen so that usually music is fine even with -V5.A higher quality -Vx setting means these parameters are chosen more restrictive so hat the deviation from the original is lower. This way the probability of getting a transparent result increases. This is kind of a brute force quality management.

My -Qx quality setting works a bit different.-Q1 for instance internally uses the accuracy parameters of -V3 as a quality basis. This gives the headroom for a dynamic quality management. For the known issues of very tonal problem samples as well as harpsichord music I derived criteria where audio quality is increased in a musical situation when lame3995o thinks this is necessary. This is a more selective approach than that of -Vx. (But don't think it is a very intelligent mechanism. In order to have a strong effect on various problem samples I still had to do things in a pretty much brute force way).

I don't touch the lowpass anymore which is a function of -Vx, in case of -Q1 that of the underlying basic -V3.If you prefer another lowpass, use the --lowpass setting.